Cyclist facing manslaughter charge

Tit (in more ways than one)

Tit (in more ways than one) for tat. 

Leicester managed to find two police offers to catch errant cyclists on a pedestrian walk. Nothing for the discgraceful numbed of drivers on mobile phones, each 5 mins, I see when riding? 

First accident in over five years? 

Even cyclists are becoming numb to the number of cyclists being killed by motorists and getting away with it? 

Again, no one takes out a will to play golf? 

Why is it the thing that makes us feel the most alive will probably be the thing that gets us killed? 

That’s exactly the issue Rich
That’s exactly the issue Rich. Not sure anyone is arguing that he is guilty of some level of crime and negligence, it’s the styles of reporting, the ‘expert’ witnesses and the comparison to application of law in terms of motorists doing similar that is the annoyance…

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

 

The rider slowed, this is accepted, that’s one thinking/slowing time frame, that the deceased then does not react to audiable warnings in any rational way nor do the expected and simply continue walking forward out of the way (and they’ve already dawdled at best to not even cross one side of the carriageway in the 3.8seconds which is hugely unsual in itself) means the accused has to make another set of thinking decisions, that’s thinking and braking plus another thinking period as to what to do with an unexpected/variable happening infront of him at about 6-9 metres away that he’s trying to avoid but not sure what they are going to do.

The front brake in itself is immaterial unless you are going to apply the same set of braking rules (of coming to a complete stop ALL the time whenever it looks like or that a pedestrian does cross in front of you unexpectedly at ANY given distance AND that you transit along the highway at a speed at least 1/3 less than the indicated if not half at all these times. Again, that rarely happens if ever in normal conditions, to expect this person to adhere to rules that are not applied every day for all types is ludicrous at best. That’s on top of there being form for the law ignoring the braking capability of a vehicle type known to kill and maim by the tens of thousands each year (precedence set then) and that the police apparently only enforce the law/rules or enforce the law with a totally different set of rules when they see fit and particularly against people on bikes.

You cannot start applying rules/laws differently, not change physics/how humans think and how fast they think and how often they have to re-assess what’s happening infront of them in a high stress situation, it was obviously a high stress situation by mere fact of how the defendant reacted directly afterwards. Overloading the brain means you can’t act out perfect lab test scenarios on the road otherwise cycle helmets would be closer to being 86% effective at reducing head injuries which they aren’t, not even close.

Bullshit. The prosecuting case is simple. If the cyclist had a front brake then the whole scenario would have been different. Without a front brake AND with a fixed gear you cannot slow down anywhere near as quickly. You talk about high stress situations? IF the cyclist had a front brake there is little doubt he would have grabbed a fistful of it and things would have been different. The fact is, all of the scenario/reactions/stress outcomes you have speculated/described are not just a result of a pedestrian stepping out carelessly onto a road, they are a result too of the vehicle involved. In this a case one which was defective and illegal and, without doubt, contributed to the outcome.

And yes, going back to my
And yes, going back to my unrelated example, thinking was definitely a problem. Grabbed brake locked back rather than scrubbing speed off the front. Something was quick enough to tell me that was wrong and release it, then I grabbed the same bloody brake again. I also seemed to ‘want’ to hit the barrier when there was a whole load of road to my left, partly because there was a big barrier to the right that was running out and then a drop. But sometimes I think, why didn’t I just steer left.

Overload of the brain can cause strange outcomes.

hawkinspeter wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

@BehindTheBikesheds – I just had an opportunity to time my approximate stopping time from my Fly12. I was going around 18mph and a pedestrian light turned red that I wasn’t expecting to be used (it’s not a busy one – I go along that road hundreds of times and have only had to stop maybe 10 times). I spotted it late (the pedestrian was on the right of the road) and so braked quickly though it wasn’t an emergency stop and the road was a little bit wet. It took me just over 3 seconds to slow to a walking pace/track stand after the light turned amber and that’s including the time taken for me to notice the light changing (I only spotted it when it was red). My bike’s got disc brakes so that definitely helped, but I didn’t need to brake hard enough to lose any traction and I’ve got 25mm tyres. I reckon I used about 60% rear and 40% front brake (as far as I can estimate).

So you’ve ridden the road hundreds of times and passed through the pedestrian crossing, at which you must stop if the light is red, hundreds of times. And this is comparable how? If you’d been riding that road and a piano fell from the sky 30 metres after the crossing you’d have half a case. Then I’d dismiss it for comparing disc brakes and a non calibrated camera as parts of your ‘evidence’. What software did you use to determine the 3 metres, I’ve a crash to investigate that I’d like some hard, fast numbers on…

It took me longer than 3m to stop and you’re right it’s crappy evidence. I just thought I’d give my experience that 3.8 seconds should be plenty of time to significantly slow from 18mph.

but as i said the 3.8 seconds isn’t just about coming to a stop completely, no-one, or rather very rarely does anyone come to a complete stop when someone starts to cross ahead both on bike or in a car, bus, HGV, van, person on a horse or whatever.

The rider slowed, this is accepted, that’s one thinking/slowing time frame, that the deceased then does not react to audiable warnings in any rational way nor do the expected and simply continue walking forward out of the way (and they’ve already dawdled at best to not even cross one side of the carriageway in the 3.8seconds which is hugely unsual in itself) means the accused has to make another set of thinking decisions, that’s thinking and braking plus another thinking period as to what to do with an unexpected/variable happening infront of him at about 6-9 metres away that he’s trying to avoid but not sure what they are going to do.

The front brake in itself is immaterial unless you are going to apply the same set of braking rules (of coming to a complete stop ALL the time whenever it looks like or that a pedestrian does cross in front of you unexpectedly at ANY given distance AND that you transit along the highway at a speed at least 1/3 less than the indicated if not half at all these times. Again, that rarely happens if ever in normal conditions, to expect this person to adhere to rules that are not applied every day for all types is ludicrous at best. That’s on top of there being form for the law ignoring the braking capability of a vehicle type known to kill and maim by the tens of thousands each year (precedence set then) and that the police apparently only enforce the law/rules or enforce the law with a totally different set of rules when they see fit and particularly against people on bikes.

You cannot start applying rules/laws differently, not change physics/how humans think and how fast they think and how often they have to re-assess what’s happening infront of them in a high stress situation, it was obviously a high stress situation by mere fact of how the defendant reacted directly afterwards. Overloading the brain means you can’t act out perfect lab test scenarios on the road otherwise cycle helmets would be closer to being 86% effective at reducing head injuries which they aren’t, not even close.

alansmurphy wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

@BehindTheBikesheds – I just had an opportunity to time my approximate stopping time from my Fly12. I was going around 18mph and a pedestrian light turned red that I wasn’t expecting to be used (it’s not a busy one – I go along that road hundreds of times and have only had to stop maybe 10 times). I spotted it late (the pedestrian was on the right of the road) and so braked quickly though it wasn’t an emergency stop and the road was a little bit wet. It took me just over 3 seconds to slow to a walking pace/track stand after the light turned amber and that’s including the time taken for me to notice the light changing (I only spotted it when it was red). My bike’s got disc brakes so that definitely helped, but I didn’t need to brake hard enough to lose any traction and I’ve got 25mm tyres. I reckon I used about 60% rear and 40% front brake (as far as I can estimate).

So you’ve ridden the road hundreds of times and passed through the pedestrian crossing, at which you must stop if the light is red, hundreds of times. And this is comparable how? If you’d been riding that road and a piano fell from the sky 30 metres after the crossing you’d have half a case. Then I’d dismiss it for comparing disc brakes and a non calibrated camera as parts of your ‘evidence’. What software did you use to determine the 3 metres, I’ve a crash to investigate that I’d like some hard, fast numbers on…

It took me longer than 3m to stop and you’re right it’s crappy evidence. I just thought I’d give my experience that 3.8 seconds should be plenty of time to significantly slow from 18mph.

brooksby wrote:

In the Grauniad’s coverage today, the prosecution are suggesting that the cyclist is some sort of dangerous adrenalin junkie. Now, admittedly, IMO  riding a fixed wheel track bike with no front brake takes a certain nerve (incidentally he says he didn’t know that he had to have a front brake to be legal). Anyway, his own social media posts have been used against him in this argument. But, I’m sorry to report, the prosecutions main thing for showing that he’s a reckless Lucas Brunelle wannabe is… Wait for it… He. Admitted. That. He. Doesn’t. Wear. A. Helmet. 

Surely a smart defence lawyer will ask the jury to substitute the prosecutions use of “bike” for “car”,  job done. Same with the helmet as there is supporting evidence.

So the accused watched adrenaline infused cycling videos in the same way that petrol heads watched the Clarkson version of  Top Gear.

Does the jury honestly believe that buying an Atom/Lotus 7/other track car turns them into murdering animals?

Ignorance of the law is no defence either.

As a bystander, it’s getting more ridiculous by the day.